Obama’s MSNBC Whore

By Arnold Ahlert (Bio and Archives) Tuesday, May 14, 2013

MSNBC Chris Matthews

Canada Free Press

Yesterday, administration was involved in a cover-up. “If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information,” Obama said. “Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic.” Equally willing to defy logic was Obama’s MSNBC # Chris Matthews, who has been more than eager to carry water for the Obama administration. Indeed, Matthews’ coverage of the unrelenting Benghazi scandal has distinguished itself as being particularly loathsome.

Last Thursday, Matthews was in fine form. After acknowledging that Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, had testified before the House that he had spoken with Hillary Clinton on the night of the attack and that Clinton’s Chief of Staff tried to intimidate him into silence, Matthews downplayed the egregiousness of the former secretary of State’s scandalous behavior.

The Obama administration was merely putting the “best face” on a terrible situation, Matthews said. “But it didn’t cause Chris Stevens to be killed, it didn’t cause the guys being killed by the mortar fire in the second attack, it didn’t really cause any damage except to Mitt Romney,” he continued. “And how is that going to offend the public?” In other words, four deaths and a subsequent cover-up are no big deal.

New York Times political reporter Jeremy Peters, on Matthews’ Hardball that night, parroted the host’s take, insisting the public wasn’t offended, and that any indignation was limited to “riling up a small part of the Republican base.” “You can’t go to a Republican town hall meeting these days without someone shouting ‘Benghazi! Benghazi!’” complained Peters. Incredibly, Matthews wondered what harm was done by the State Department removing references to terrorism from the post-attack talking points two weeks before the election. “What’s the big damage there?” he asked. Matthews neglected to connect for viewers that one of the president’s central campaign slogans was that terrorism was “on the run,” something that makes the cover-up of the jihadist murder of our ambassador and three Americans at the height of a presidential election much more.

The fact remains that, in answer to Matthews’ question, the “big damage” is that the Obama-Clinton Benghazi lies were indeed concocted to conceal their responsibility for the deaths of four Americans. When Senior NBC investigative reporter Lisa Meyers, also on the show Thursday, pointed out there were legitimate questions regarding the lack of security and contingency plans at the consulate in Benghazi, and that no effort was made to rescue the Americans trapped there, Matthews acknowledged that such a reality was problematic. But he quickly insisted Clinton “does care about her ambassadors” and then launched into a fantasy scenario involving Clinton moving heaven and earth to save Americans. Even Chris Stevens himself warranted more blame than Hillary and Obama: As Matthews asserted, Stevens knew what he was getting into when he went to Libya, “a country that wasn’t quite stable.”

Read more Here

Reposted with permission.